Forum:Inactive User Category + Its insertion on user pages
Proposal I had asked Lancer1289 last night regarding placing an "Inactive User" category on the user pages who haven't contributed at all in 60 or more days. Now, I was told that a) There wasn't an established policy; b) It still wasn't allowed anyways to edit another's user page; and c) He suggested that I create a forum on this, so here goes. What I want to do is create a new category page titled "Inactive Users". The parameters that I'm basing to put these on others' user pages is if the said users have not contributed to the ME Wiki in more than 60 days. Contributions can easily be checked under that user's Contributions sub-heading. Should a user meet this requirement, I propose that any user can edit that user's user page to ONLY place the said category; nothing else is condoned and the policy is still in effect. My rationalization for such a category policy is that on another wiki I go to, Avatar Wiki, although it is still a very serious offense to edit another user's page, placing an "Inactive Users" category on it is one of the few exemptions to the rule. For that site, the policy is to place such a category on the user's page after at least 2 months of inactivity. I believe such a change will be beneficial to the wiki because it will help users identify who's inactive and who regularly contributes. It also cuts down on the total number of active users by letting others know that these users may or may not be coming back. Now, discuss. Voting is also enabled. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 12:11, July 11, 2011 (UTC) Voting Support #As proposer. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 12:11, July 11, 2011 (UTC) Neutral Oppose #For reasons I've stated below. Lancer1289 16:36, July 11, 2011 (UTC) Discussion I have many misgivings about this policy should it be implemented. This would add categories onto user page, and currently we don't allow any category on a user page, which includes their various sandboxes if they have them. Putting user pages into categories, even if it is only one, I'm not supportive of as people could take it as an OK to create another category and then place it on their user page, or even an existing category. Also what is meant by this sentence: "It also cuts down on the total number of active users by letting others know that these users may or may not be coming back"? I thought we should be encouraging new users, not driving them away? So some clarification on that is requested. The whole thing just seems like something we are doing to penalize people who aren't here very often. Some only drop in once new information comes around, and then leave again. Since just about everyone who edits here is well aware of our policy against editing user pages, and no user pages in categories, they might be very confused as to why there is one on their page. I'm really not in favor of that. Also, people have a habit of not reading things anyway. Just because there is a category on their page, doesn’t mean they will see it, know what it means, and might actually turn that page into a target for vandalism because they aren't here. I have one very big note at the top of my talk page with just a few simple requests which not only helps me, but helps them as well, and yet it often gets ignored. Overall, this is something that I just can't agree with and probably won't any time soon. Lancer1289 16:36, July 11, 2011 (UTC) :I tend to agree with Lancer on this. We shouldn't start messing with user pages without reason. We might need a separate guideline regarding removing content from user pages (dead links, and other wiki maintenance issues) but playing around needlessly is inviting problems. :RE: listing active/inactive users: we could create a page that does the same thing without the need to attach categories to user pages. --silverstrike 17:11, July 11, 2011 (UTC) ::Actually we do have something for Red Links in comments on talk pages, and on user pages. Lancer1289 18:02, July 11, 2011 (UTC) Just wondering if this is automated because it sounds terribly impractical to put a category for potentially hundreds of inactive users, let alone to track who and when they are inactive or when they. Anyway, that is beside the point. If I'm away for 2 months (which I had been previously), I do not want to return just find my user page changed from where I left them off. It's like an evasion of my personal space. — Teugene (Talk) 18:16, July 11, 2011 (UTC) :The only way to automate it is with a bot, otherwise we'd be doing it ourselves, and I have to say, that is not something I'd be willing to do readily as I also see it as an invasion of personal space, which is what I was trying, an failed to get above. Like I said, I'm not supportive of this, and I can't see that many people here would be. If someone is going to be inactive for a prolonged period, then just do what Tullis did, and just leave a note on your user page, and probably your talk page for good measure. Lancer1289 18:21, July 11, 2011 (UTC) ::What I mean by my second point is that we currently don't have guidelines that determine when a user becomes inactive. If all these users haven't contributed for a while, then their profiles are a waste of space in their current state. But I can already see that this is going to cause many more problems than it solves. At least I suggested it. It looks like the forum's dead and I'm going to shut it down, but I don't know how to. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 21:12, July 11, 2011 (UTC)